Leadership Team Meeting

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

October 30, 2013. Leadership Team Meeting. Bell Ringer. Choose four formative assessment practices that research reviews  suggest lead to improved student achievement. Clear Learning Goal. Use formative assessment to differentiate teaching and learning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of Leadership Team Meeting

Pumpkin Template

Leadership Team MeetingOctober 30, 2013Bell Ringer Choose four formative assessment practices that research reviewssuggest lead to improved student achievement.2Clear Learning GoalUse formative assessment to differentiate teaching and learningDevelop deeper knowledge of questioning and engagementClear Learning GoalsDemonstrate the fundamentals of free throw shooting to successfully hit a shotFree Throw Shooting

DirectionsWrite down the fundamental steps needed to successfully hit free throwsFree Throw ShootingStepsFeet shoulder width apartDetermine your ritualReach for the rim, inside the rim or back of the rimBalance the ball on your fingertipsArms in L shapeFollow the motion through the bodyFollow through

With a shoulder partner physically practice steps to fundamentally shoot free throws correctly

Formative AssessmentFeet shoulder width apartDetermine your ritualReach for the rim, inside the rim or back of the rimBalance the ball on your fingertipsArms in L shapeFollow the motion through the bodyFollow through

Go to the gymAssessment Results___________ out of ___________ made their first free throw attempt___________ out of ___________ made their second free throw attempt___________ out of ___________ made their summative free throw attempt

Next StepsDo we move on?What about students that have mastered the skill or the ones who need much remediation?Did our formative assessment align with our Clear Learning Goal & what we taught?Did we put you in the game situation?Next Steps contDid we have mastery of the formative before we did the summative?Did we get the problem fixed so could have growth?Did we individualize or regroup?How did you organize the cards?Reflecting on this list, which skills are not applicable in science education?

Do Categories Matter?English Language ArtsScience and EngineeringMathematicsCite textual evidence to support analysisDetermine the meaning of symbols and domain specific wordsFollow precisely a multi-step procedureDistinguish among facts, reasoned judgment in research, and speculationAnalyze the structure used for organization and to enhance understandingIntegrate information expressed in words with visual representations Compare/Contrast experimental results with informational textAsk Questions and Define ProblemsDevelop and Use ModelsPlan and Carry Out InvestigationsAnalyze and Interpret DataUse Math, Information Technology, Computer Technology, and Computational ThinkingConstruct Explanations and Design SolutionsEngage in Argument from EvidenceObtain, Evaluate, and Communicate InformationMake sense of problems and persevere in solving themReason abstractly and quantitativelyConstruct viable arguments & critique reasoning of othersModel with mathematicsUse appropriate tools strategicallyAttend to precisionLook for and make use of structureLook for and express regularity in repeated reasoningProgram Review (PR) Scoring Guide

Program Review CalculationsEach of the 3 Program Review areas (Arts & Humanities, Writing, and Practical Living) is comprised of 4 standards (Curriculum/Instruction, Formative/Summative Assessment, Professional Development, and Administrative Support).Step 1: Average the characteristic scores for a score for each standard.Scores range from 0-3 for each standard0 No Implementation, 1 Needs Improvement, 2 Proficient, and 3 DistinguishedStep 2: Add the 4 standard scores to get a single number for each Program Review area.Scores range 0-12 for each Program Review areaThe cut score 8 is Proficient and 10.8 is DistinguishedStep 3: Add the three Program Review area scores for a total Program Review score. Scores range between 0-36Step 4: Divide the total number by 24 (proficient (8) x 3 areas = 24). This number yields the percent of the 23 points earned (number of points possible in Unbridled Learning accountability model for PR when Learners and PR are combined).Program Review Data ReleaseAVERAGE CHARACTER-ISTIC SCORES PROGRAM REVIEW TOTALCATEGORYARTS & HUMANITIESCurriculum/ Instruction1.0Formative/ Summative Assessment1.0Professional Development1.0Administrative Support1.0ARTS & HUMANITIES TOTAL4Needs ImprovementPRACTICAL LIVING/CAREERSTUDIESCurriculum/Instruction2.0Formative/Summative Assessment2.0Professional Development1.9Administrative Support2.1PRACTICAL LIVING TOTAL8ProficientWRITINGCurriculum/Instruction1.4Formative/Summative Assessment1.4Professional Development1.8Administrative Support1.4WRITING TOTAL6NeedsImprovementTOTAL POINTS18PERCENTAGE OF POINTS (divide by 24)75%ACCOUNTABILITY POINTS (out of 23 points possible)17.25CalculationExampleAccountability Formula for Combining Next Generation Learners and Program ReviewsComponentOverallWeighted PercentWeighted ScoreNext Gen Learners Overall Score 57.9X77%=44.6Program Reviews75.0X23%=17.3 Combined Overall Score* 61.9*Combined Overall Score used to calculate new 70th and 90th percentile cut for summer 2014 targetsProgram Review Data Release Combining Next-Generation Learners and Program ReviewsExit Slip Reflect on conversations around formative and summative assessments. What adjustments do you need to implement to develop enduring skills in students?